Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Mar;8(1):23-30.
doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393724. Epub 2014 Nov 18.

Current concepts of bone tissue engineering for craniofacial bone defect repair

Affiliations
Review

Current concepts of bone tissue engineering for craniofacial bone defect repair

Brian Alan Fishero et al. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

Craniofacial fractures and bony defects are common causes of morbidity and contribute to increasing health care costs. Successful regeneration of bone requires the concomitant processes of osteogenesis and neovascularization. Current methods of repair and reconstruction include rigid fixation, grafting, and free tissue transfer. However, these methods carry innate complications, including plate extrusion, nonunion, graft/flap failure, and donor site morbidity. Recent research efforts have focused on using stem cells and synthetic scaffolds to heal critical-sized bone defects similar to those sustained from traumatic injury or ablative oncologic surgery. Growth factors can be used to augment both osteogenesis and neovascularization across these defects. Many different growth factor delivery techniques and scaffold compositions have been explored yet none have emerged as the universally accepted standard. In this review, we will discuss the recent literature regarding the use of stem cells, growth factors, and synthetic scaffolds as alternative methods of craniofacial fracture repair.

Keywords: bone regeneration; fracture; mandible defect; synthetic implant.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Allareddy V, Allareddy V, Nalliah R P. Epidemiology of facial fracture injuries. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011;69(10):2613–2618. - PubMed
    1. Roden K S, Tong W, Surrusco M, Shockley W W, Van Aalst J A, Hultman C S. Changing characteristics of facial fractures treated at a regional, level 1 trauma center, from 2005 to 2010: an assessment of patient demographics, referral patterns, etiology of injury, anatomic location, and clinical outcomes. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68(5):461–466. - PubMed
    1. Mulligan R P, Friedman J A, Mahabir R C. A nationwide review of the associations among cervical spine injuries, head injuries, and facial fractures. J Trauma. 2010;68(3):587–592. - PubMed
    1. Moghadam H G Urist M R Sandor G K Clokie C M Successful mandibular reconstruction using a BMP bioimplant J Craniofac Surg 2001122119–127., discussion 128 - PubMed
    1. Wang X X, Allen R J Jr, Tutela J P. et al.Progenitor cell mobilization enhances bone healing by means of improved neovascularization and osteogenesis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(2):395–405. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources